T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
1924.1 | SERPers as consultants | PULPO::BELDIN_R | All's well that ends | Thu Jun 04 1992 12:58 | 13 |
| 1. "Positions" were not vacated by SERP. As I understand it, the
organizations they left have their approved headcount reduced and
nobody is to be rehired for a "position". In most cases, we can't
afford to wait for someone new to be found to do the work.
2. Consultant positions are by nature temporary. We are not rehiring
these people, we are giving them limited contracts. It makes good
business sense to use retirees for these positions.
Dick,
who has been and will be again, a Consultant
|
1924.2 | | CIS1::FULTI | | Thu Jun 04 1992 13:01 | 6 |
| I don't know the exact answers but, I would guess that those SERP'ed employees
that have been hired back are working on important projects which they and
only they have critical knowledge about. I would also hope that once the project
is completed their contract would not be renewed.
- George
|
1924.3 | | NETWKS::GASKELL | | Thu Jun 04 1992 13:03 | 7 |
| I have only heard of two SERP's being rehired as consultants and that
was to transition their group's function to an outside service.
Of the some 500 to 800 (?) secretaries we lost, have you tried hiring
a secretary today! If they don't rehire some of them, business could
grind7
to snails pace.
|
1924.4 | I know of positions that were/are refilled | STAR::PARKE | True Engineers Combat Obfuscation | Thu Jun 04 1992 14:01 | 4 |
| The Serper's positions did not go away in all cases. I know of two that are
being refilled. The source of bodies for these, though, could befrom positions
that were unneeded.
|
1924.5 | As usual, it depends... | SCAACT::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow | Thu Jun 04 1992 14:52 | 10 |
| My manager's manager SERPed. He has a 3 week consulting contract to come back
and tie up loose ends. That doesn't sound out of line to me.
Whether a person is replaced or not depends upon the position. If an AGM
SERPed, he obviously needs to be replaced. It could be by promotion of
another member of the Acount Team, with the other members of the team picking
up the duties of the that member. This would result in a net headcount
reduction.
Bob
|
1924.6 | What's corporate guideline ? | RT93::HU | | Thu Jun 04 1992 15:17 | 11 |
|
Did I hear some corporate policy before that you can't be hired back
as contractor/consultant within certain periods (6-12 monthes) after
you left company ?
Can anyone verify this ?
Otherwise, I would say lots of talents will prepare resignation letter
now.
Michael..
|
1924.7 | | FIGS::BANKS | This was | Thu Jun 04 1992 15:38 | 18 |
| I've heard that the official policy is that a SERPer can't be hired back as a
consultant until they've been gone 6-12 months. I've also heard that they can
make exceptions to this by getting a couple levels of VP approval to ok the
contract on a temporary basis.
Ok, that's not so surprising. What it says is that they can do anything they
want, given enough support from high enough levels of management, which again
are the normal rules of business.
What bothers me, though, is that if the "Do the right thing" attitude still
prevailed, those couple of levels of VPs would have held the SERP package for
the relevant employees until everyone was ready for them to go. Instead, we
get multiple levels of VP approval for someone to double-dip the company: Get
the big severance, and keep getting a paycheck at the same time.
I understand why this was done, and I can even see some of the reasoning why it'd
be the path of least resistance to allow the double dipping. It's just that it
still scores about 2 out of 10 on the "do the right thing" scale in my book.
|
1924.8 | | FDCV07::HSCOTT | Lynn Hanley-Scott | Thu Jun 04 1992 15:53 | 5 |
| Read the LIVEWIRE announcement of SERP's completion - the last lines
discuss that some SERP'd folks willl be here on a short term consultant
basis to finish critical work.
|
1924.9 | | USPMLO::JSANTOS | | Thu Jun 04 1992 16:26 | 4 |
| re.7 SERP was voluntary - how can you insure work was completed by
people SERPing out if you didn't know who they were until they
actually left? I think if you ask most SERPers how that would rate the
program they would say about an 8+ on a scale 1-10.
|
1924.10 | | FIGS::BANKS | This was | Thu Jun 04 1992 16:36 | 23 |
| .9:
How about:
Person X says to their boss: "I want to SERP"
Boss says, "But you're in a sensitive position here. We can't afford to have
you leave until two months from now."
Person X says "Ok, could you hold the package for me until I'm done here?"
Boss says "Yes"
This way, everyone gets what they want. The SERPer gets the package, and the
boss isn't left in the lurch, and the shareholders don't have to pay any double
dipping. It'd no doubt have taken approval from high levels, but then again
so does getting hired right back on contract. The difference is that holding
SERP would cost the company less, and wouldn't leave the impression of someone
pulling a fast one.
The package was good. It's just that the implementation in some cases, giving
people both SERP and a temporary paycheck still rates 2 out of 10 on the "do the
right thing" scale.
|
1924.11 | | DENVER::DAVISGB | I'd rather be driving my Jag | Thu Jun 04 1992 16:57 | 3 |
| Bob Long - VP Aerospace, Electronics and Transportation
Serp'ed out and on as a consultant until December
|
1924.12 | | ROYALT::KOVNER | Everything you know is wrong! | Thu Jun 04 1992 17:30 | 5 |
| It is likely that extending the SERP deadline for some, but not all, people
could cause lawsuits from those for whom the deadline was not extended.
There might also be laws relating to this, since retirement plans are covered
under Federal laws.
|
1924.13 | | USPMLO::JSANTOS | | Thu Jun 04 1992 17:47 | 3 |
| Early retirement programs must meet defined guidlines (45 days for folks
to review the package) with definite start and end dates. If one person
was extended the entire company would have to be extended...
|
1924.14 | They will already be collecting their pension... | SCAACT::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow | Thu Jun 04 1992 23:24 | 14 |
| re: .10
>This way, everyone gets what they want. The SERPer gets the package, and the
>boss isn't left in the lurch, and the shareholders don't have to pay any double
>dipping.
I don't know about that. If a person is on the payroll, the company
still has to pay their salary + 40% - 50% of their salary in benefits.
If they come back as a consultant, the company is only responsible for
their fee. If one of my soon to be former employees wanted to come back
for anything greater than their annual salary paid at an hourly rate, I
know what I'd tell them....
Bob
|
1924.15 | | CREATV::QUODLING | Ken, Me, and a cast of extras... | Fri Jun 05 1992 00:13 | 7 |
| re .-1
Gee, most of my experience is that consultants can draw significantly more
than conventional employees in renumeration.
q
|
1924.16 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Fri Jun 05 1992 05:35 | 15 |
|
> Gee, most of my experience is that consultants can draw significantly more
> than conventional employees in renumeration.
What you pay in someones salary is a great deal less than what they cost
the company, it costs approx the same amount again.
eg, if someone is paid 25,000 quid, it costs the company 50,000 quid as
a permanent employee.
So you'd have to pay the contractor quite a lot of money before it was
actually costing the company more.
Heather
|
1924.17 | | DCC::HAGARTY | Essen, Trinken und Shaggen... | Fri Jun 05 1992 08:09 | 3 |
| Ahhh Gi'day...�
Then why would you pay them three times as much :-)
|
1924.18 | And behold, it was so. | MOCA::RUSSELL_D | | Fri Jun 05 1992 08:39 | 11 |
| The other thing that would be interesting is how they (the consultants)
are handling their workman's compensation insurance, liability, etc.
Most bona fide consultants are incorporated and have those so that if
they get hurt at a customer's they are covered. As far as those who do
come back, come on now, every one knows that it's like George Orwell's
Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, except some are more equal than
others." The politics that existed before SERP greased the skids for
those who wanted more time to find something else, and behold there
were consultants, and it was good.
DAR
|
1924.19 | It's called a free market | BASEX::GREENLAW | I used to be an ASSET, now I'm a Resource | Fri Jun 05 1992 09:48 | 9 |
| Look at the issue from a different perspective. If someone is elligible
for the SERP, wants it, and is financally secure, why would they stay to
complete a job? They are now a desired resource, maybe the only one. So
they can ask for all the market will bear. 3, 4, or more times their
former wage. It is now Digital's job to find a cost effective way to
"get the job done." I know that if I were in the same situation, I would
want a LOT of money :-)
Lee G.
|
1924.20 | RE: "could you hold the package for me until..." | VICE::BROWN | | Fri Jun 05 1992 12:46 | 32 |
|
.10
>
>How about:
>
>Person X says to their boss: "I want to SERP"
>
>Boss says, "But you're in a sensitive position here. We can't afford
>to have
>you leave until two months from now."
>>Person X says "Ok, could you hold the package for me until I'm done
here?"
>
>Boss says "Yes"
>
Yeah Right!
I have seen so many promises like this broken!
What happens when "Joe Good Person" X's boss is replaced?
How many levels of management up would one have to go to
get that "good fuzzy warm feeling" that this agreement wouldn't
change when the management's needs/desires changed.
Remember the management can do wat it wants, when it wants and
that the good 'ole Boss has managers too.
|
1924.21 | Fair Deal for Employee and DEC | HOTWTR::SASLOW_ST | STEVE | Fri Jun 05 1992 13:20 | 11 |
| Since everyone is speculating, let me tell you how it works.
Person says "I want SERP"
Boss says I need you for a few months. The deal is:
The person is hired as a consultant working for a Chicago company who
becomes his employer at the same salary DEC was paying him. The Chicago
company withholds taxes etc. They are not independent consultants able
to charge what ever they want. This is how two people I know were
offerred the extension.
|
1924.22 | | SINTAX::MOSKAL | | Fri Jun 05 1992 14:19 | 20 |
|
> 1. "Positions" were not vacated by SERP. As I understand it, the
> organizations they left have their approved headcount reduced and
> nobody is to be rehired for a "position". In most cases, we can't
> afford to wait for someone new to be found to do the work.
This is one of the key problems here at DEC. If one person becomes
critical path, then their manager isn't doing their job. Granted,
one person maybe be more proficient at doing a particular task, but
proper strategy dictates that contingencies should be in place.
> 2. Consultant positions are by nature temporary. We are not rehiring
> these people, we are giving them limited contracts. It makes good
> business sense to use retirees for these positions.
It takes NON-sense to manage as to lock oneself into a a single
source dependency.
-Andy
|
1924.23 | Who Can Substantiate 100% of Salary Costs? | CSC32::D_SLOUGH | Gravity Enhancement Consultant ��~ | Fri Jun 05 1992 14:20 | 8 |
| Regarding the comments in .14 and .16 on the additional expenses over
salary associated with an employee. I've heard 40%, 50% (I hear this
one often.), and now 100%. Can anyone break this down for us? ... in
detail? For example, how much goes to Unemployment Insurance, Health
Insurance, Vacation, Holidays, and the staff that manages these
programs.
Dennis
|
1924.24 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jun 05 1992 14:57 | 5 |
| re .22:
Speaking of critical paths, I heard that a product release has been delayed
because both of the people in SPD administration who were allowed to approve
SPDs have SERPed.
|
1924.25 | Benefits | MOCA::RUSSELL_D | | Fri Jun 05 1992 15:14 | 20 |
| I was just estimating but here is what I came up with.
Say a person was making $50K
FICA paid by individual 6.2%
FICA paid by company 6.2%
Medicare paid indiv 1.45%
Medicare paid company 1.45%
Four Weeks vacation 7.69%
11 Holidays 4.23%
Health ins @3000/yr 6.00%
Retirement 1.5%
Total 34.72%
There are other benefits too such as unemployment insurance, workman's
comp, etc. but I'm not sure what those would run because they are based
on company history. When I worked at GM a around 1980 we figured for
direct labor at $11/hr + $8/hr in benefits or something like that I
would assume we would be somewhere between 35% and 75% of base salary.
|
1924.26 | Other costs of having a body at work | 4GL::DICKSON | | Fri Jun 05 1992 15:30 | 2 |
| Each person also has a telephone (say $40 per month), and occupies
space (around $5K/yr in ZKO), and might use computers, etc etc.
|
1924.27 | | FIGS::BANKS | This was | Fri Jun 05 1992 16:26 | 21 |
| RE: "If we extend SERP for one person, then we'll have to do it for
everyone"
No, not really.
The rules said that we don't hire people back on contract right after they
SERP out. For some limited exceptions, some managers high enough up the
org chart said "Well, you're valuable enough to us for us to make an
exception to you".
In essence, the rules were bypassed for certain employees, and in such a
fashion that they didn't have to cut the same deal for everyone.
Similarly, the sufficiently high ups could have said "Well, you're valuable
enough for us to make an exception and extend SERP".
It's their company and their money, and they can ultimately do what they
want to do. If they wanted to give someone $1M in severance pay, they
could choose to do that, and not leave themselves open to liability that
said that they have to do it for everyone. All that's required is proof
that it was something they chose to do.
|
1924.28 | | SYORPD::DEEP | Bob Deep - SYO, DTN 256-5708 | Fri Jun 05 1992 16:28 | 6 |
| Can someone explain to me why it is double-dipping to hire individuals back as
consultants _now_ as opposed to delaying the package x months?
Thanks...
Bob
|
1924.29 | | FIGS::BANKS | This was | Fri Jun 05 1992 16:36 | 6 |
| Because they get the severance pay (26 weeks) and a regular weekly paycheck
at the same time. This is in marked contrast to someone who stays on the
payroll, but doesn't get severance benefits until they leave.
Yeah, I s'pose it works out to the same money either way, but it still has
a strong scent of "I'm taking my severance money and staying" to it.
|
1924.30 | | USPMLO::JSANTOS | | Fri Jun 05 1992 16:40 | 5 |
| re -27 SERP was not extended. Some folks SERPed out then returned with
V.P. approval (as mentioned earlier in this note). The folks
i've seen that have returned (and there haven't been many) are
in critical positions doing work that *no one* else in this
company could do...
|
1924.31 | | ROYALT::KOVNER | Everything you know is wrong! | Fri Jun 05 1992 17:09 | 6 |
| My point was that UNDER FEDERAL LAW, if we extend SERP for one person, we
might have to do it for everyone. (I don't know this; I'm speculating. I
think one person said that such plans ARE under regulations that require this.)
No one in this company can write an exception for a law.
|
1924.32 | | SINTAX::MOSKAL | | Fri Jun 05 1992 17:35 | 4 |
| > in critical positions doing work that *no one* else in this
> company could do...
I tend to doubt this. Everyone is expendible.
|
1924.33 | No One Is Indespensible | SWAM1::BASURA_BR | | Fri Jun 05 1992 18:19 | 4 |
|
> I tend to doubt this. Everyone is expendible.
Especlally those who think they aren't !!!
|
1924.34 | | SSBN1::YANKES | | Fri Jun 05 1992 18:40 | 18 |
|
Re: .32
You're right, everyone is expendible (even KO) in the sense that
Digital doesn't cease to exist if they leave. That doesn't mean the
transition would be smooth. Expendibility is different from saying that
the knowledge needed to operate every position in the company is
replicated in someone else so that if someone leaves, the other person
could instantly fill the position and be fully productive. (If this
was the case, wouldn't we know where to get rid of 50% of Digital's
employees? ;-) The amount of time between when the SERP decisions had
to be submitted and when they left might not have been long enough for
everyone to pass their knowledge on to a designated replacement. In
these cases (especially for the "strategic planning" or "big projects"
kinds of positions) it would make sense to contract them back for a
while to finish the knowledge transfer.
-craig
|
1924.35 | goings and comings | DENVER::GRAY | THERESE | Fri Jun 05 1992 18:59 | 5 |
| I was told that the SERP office expected about 20 people to retire and
return to Digital on the following Monday, but got 300.
We have one secretary who worked for Digital last Friday and for Kelly
(Girl - do they still use this term?) on Monday.
|
1924.36 | Continuity requires planning | SINTAX::MOSKAL | | Fri Jun 05 1992 23:25 | 14 |
| Re: .34
Surely one person may be more proficient at a given task than another.
This certainly can impact any transition. However, proper planning can
minimize the impact. (I've seen this work!)
Any situation which is so highly dependent upoon the knowledge of one
individual surely illustrates a failure on the part of the next level
of management. Contingencies to ensure continuity should have been in
place. What if something unforeseen should happen to the individual?
-Andy
|
1924.37 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Sat Jun 06 1992 02:16 | 13 |
| Every plan has risk. When a particular risk (such as the most critical
person getting hit by a truck) becomes enough lower than something else
(such as losing funding), then the truck should be ignored and the
funding risk dealt with instead. Each manager must realize that he
can't reduce ALL the risks to zero, and trying to do so would put the
project in more jeopardy than ignoring the less likely ones. The goal
is to make the project's risk as low as possible within the funding and
time limits allowed.
In the case of a critical person taking SERP, it was probably not
possible for a project manager to predict that program and provide a
backup, or trying to do so might cost too much and itself destroy the
project.
|
1924.38 | excellent point | GRANMA::FDEADY | | Sat Jun 06 1992 21:12 | 12 |
|
re: .37
Excellent point regarding the short notice of the SERP deployment.
I can see several situations that could have required a specific
individual's skill. This should be another lesson for DEC regarding
personnel changes. Maybe DEC should re-evaluate the SERP lump payment
and add or subtract as needed.
I learn something new every day,
Fred Deady
WBC::DEADY
|
1924.39 | | RUSURE::MELVIN | Ten Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2 | Sat Jun 06 1992 22:50 | 15 |
| > Every plan has risk. When a particular risk (such as the most critical
> person getting hit by a truck) becomes enough lower than something else
> (such as losing funding), then the truck should be ignored and the
> funding risk dealt with instead.
People can get sick (short or long, die without getting hit with a truck),
have family problems that need taking care of. People also sometimes move on
to other jobs / companies. It certainly looks like there are NO plans in
place; SERP is a good example. However fast and sudden it came, it showed
that people are not prepared in the least for the loss of crtical team members.
Stating that the suddeness of SERP could not be planned for is not a valid
excuse, in my opinion. Do you think anyone PLANS an accident? No, they strike
rather suddenly and rather unexpectedly (just like SERP).
-Joe
|
1924.40 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Sun Jun 07 1992 02:21 | 13 |
| Re .-1
I suppose SERP can be compared to a dozen other things that can
effectively remove a critical employee, so in that sense it isn't
special. But note that SERP applied to LOTS of employees, and some
projects got hit several times. That does make SERP unusual.
It is still true that covering risks, including losing a key employee,
consumes resources: manpower, time, or money. Whether or not the
actual risk justifies spending additional resources is a decision that
the management of a project should explicitly consider. It may very
well be that covering the risk puts the project in more jeopardy than
the risk itself. In that case, the risk should simply be accepted.
|
1924.41 | We are all being asked to do more with less... | SCAACT::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow | Sun Jun 07 1992 23:03 | 22 |
| re: .22 and your following replies
>This is one of the key problems here at DEC. If one person becomes
>critical path, then their manager isn't doing their job. Granted,
>one person maybe be more proficient at doing a particular task, but
>proper strategy dictates that contingencies should be in place.
Given the headcount restrictions we have been under for quite sometime,
combined with the requirements that people do more and more functions,
I disagree with your assertion that their managers aren't doing their
job.
I'm aware of several people who, 6 months ago, had one job assignment
that was a full time job. They now have 3 assignments that are each
full time jobs. I guess their manager could refuse to give them those
assignments, but 2 of the 3 assignments involve direct customer
contact. Of course, they could just refuse to answer customer and
sales reps/support questions, or refuse to provide demos for customers.
Yeah, that's it. We don't need customers.
Bob
|
1924.42 | Be careful comparing employee vs consultant costs | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Mon Jun 08 1992 11:15 | 23 |
| re: .26
>Each person also has a telephone (say $40 per month), and occupies
>space (around $5K/yr in ZKO), and might use computers, etc etc.
Unfortunately, these figures don't enter into the discussion of why a
consultant should be paid more than an employee. The consultant's
consumption of these resources will be essentially equal to that of a
regular employee.
I wonder how many of these "actual cost for an employee" numbers
includes figures for our huge management overhead which is also
necessary for consultants.
It seems to me that the "cost of an employee" vs. the "cost of a
consultant" should be comparing that annual figure that we (in the US,
anyway) get about our "total compensation" vs the hourly wage of the
consultant. Seems to me that my "tc" numbers have been running about
20% or so over my gross pay. Add to that an uplift for a consultant
who is taking the additional risk of not working tomorrow. Now ask, is
the consultant worth 2x-3x more than the cost of a regular employee?
-- Russ
|
1924.43 | | USPMLO::JSANTOS | | Mon Jun 08 1992 14:15 | 10 |
| re.42 What are you saying? Should a consultant be worth that kind of
money? If Digital doesn't have the expertise in a crutial area and
there are only 3 or 4 people in the country with the expertise and they
are all consultants - how much are they worth?
As far as bringing people back - If Digital moved 3700 prople off the
books with SERP and we brought back 100 for crutial need positions -
didn't we still net 3600 worth of expenses off the books? Isn't that
goodness? What sense would it make to say "no SERPers can return no
matter what" then we do a nation wide search for folks to fill those
100 crutial positions for 6 months?
|
1924.44 | We must choose the correct numbers to make decisions | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Mon Jun 08 1992 15:34 | 13 |
| re: .43
I am saying that we must compare apples to apples (as best we can) in
order to make the judgement. Saying "employees cost twice their annual
salary, so a consultant should be worth twice as much in straight
salary" is misleading unless the 100% overhead figure includes NO costs
which also are incurred by the presence of the contractor.
Personally, I can't say whether a consultant is _ALWAYS_ worth 2x or 3x
an employee's salary. That's a business decision which must be made by
examining _REAL_ facts and figures, not by comparing apples to oranges.
-- Russ
|
1924.45 | | USPMLO::JSANTOS | | Mon Jun 08 1992 15:55 | 4 |
| re .44 I agree with you, but it seems we have quite a few in these
notes that don't. People seem to be so worried in this company about
someone else getting something they are not and it never use to be like
this here. I feel like I'm working for a union these days...
|
1924.46 | | FIGS::BANKS | This was | Mon Jun 08 1992 16:32 | 35 |
| .43
Definitely a good point. The trouble is that we're left to speculate as to who
the recipients are.
From where I sit, I've only seen one instance of someone getting hired back as
a consultant, and it was a person at a relatively high level. I would not like
to think that the only people indispensible enough to qualify for this special
treatment are "higher ups", as that'd lead to an impression of preferential
treatment for those in higher levels of management.
And, as for the consultant's salary: Yes, normally consultants charge more than
employees, and a whole lot of that is due to their added costs of doing business,
most notably in the areas of double FICA and self-insurance.
Of course, someone who's SERPed is getting insurance from the retirement package,
which means that they have one less expense than the average contractor, and a
significant one at that. To SERP and hire back as a consultant may have the
effect of giving one a higher salary while at the same time, transfering an
expense (medical benefits) that was previously borne by the cost center, over to
the pension plan/retirement benefit.
Now, for me to feel good about these "rehires", I'd like to believe a few
things:
1) That the determination of whether someone was indispensable enough was based
mainly on their actual importance, and not just their relative position on the
org chart.
2) That the contract they're brought back under is of truely temporary nature,
with a clear endpoint in sight.
3) That alternative approaches were considered, but rejected, and rejected only
because they'd have cost the company more or been unimplementable.
In other words, I don't want to be left with the impression that this is just
another benefit for those high on the org chart.
|
1924.47 | | USPMLO::JSANTOS | | Mon Jun 08 1992 17:50 | 4 |
| re.46
The ones highest on the org chart were exempt from SERP. Seems
to me if the plan was to take care of the ones high on the org chart
they wouldn't have exempted themselfs...
|
1924.48 | succession insurance | I18N::SZETO | Simon Szeto, International Sys. Eng. | Mon Jun 08 1992 19:03 | 16 |
| re .46:
>From where I sit, I've only seen one instance of someone getting hired back as
>a consultant, and it was a person at a relatively high level.
I don't know the particulars of the case you are referring to, but I
know who that must be. Speculating purely on the position of that
person, I think that having that person back as a contractor for the
purpose of smoothing over the transition was absolutely essential for a
critical software project. This is not to imply that the same might
not apply in the case of an engineer.
Meanwhile, I lost my operations manager, and guess who gets to pick up
the slack? I almost cancelled my vacation.
--Simon
|
1924.49 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Tue Jun 09 1992 06:30 | 31 |
|
Example, someone on 30,000 quid, the extras that are paid:
no days in a year, 365, less 52x2 weekends = 261 days.
bank holidays 8
leave 26 + 3 floating
training 14
average sick 5
-------
56
30,000 divided by 261 , for 56 days = 6440
days not worked 6,440
12.5% pension 3,900
12.5% NI 3,900 (It may be 14%, can't quite remember)
car 5,000
2 courses 2,000
medical 150
-------
21,390
There is then the personnel overhead, updates to 14 databases that need
to be done for permanent employees-thats quite a lot of admin overhead,
payroll and PAYE, producing P60's, P11D's, payslips...................
the 15% if they contribute to ESSP......
Thats a quick run-through, I expect I've missed some stuff too.
Heather
|
1924.50 | Quid pro WHAT! | MOCA::RUSSELL_D | | Tue Jun 09 1992 10:26 | 10 |
| re .49
The company pays for your personal car there? WOW! In the States we
have one more federal holiday (probably July 4th, ;-)) also I believe
that our retirement is only 1.5% of base salary. I doubt that we
average 26 days vacation or does that include sick time? Our social
security is like 7.6% paid by the employee and 7.6% paid by company. I
don't think we get as many freebies here.
DAR
|
1924.51 | Adding a few more variables... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Zot, the Ethical Hacker | Tue Jun 09 1992 12:19 | 15 |
| re: .49
In the US, there is still admin overhead for the contractors,
including additional overhead for contract negotiation, review, and
compliance. I don't know if the contractors submit invoices for their
time (I think so, but I'm not certain), but that could add significant
admin overhead (more so than payroll which can be highly automated).
Also consider OVERTIME! I worked on a project with over 50%
contract workers. When the project leader said, "we need to meet this
deadline", the contract workers shrugged while the regular workers
groaned. Why? Because they got paid overtime while we worked extra
hours for no additional pay. THAT adds up QUICKLY!
-- Russ
|
1924.52 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Wed Jun 10 1992 06:39 | 14 |
|
> I don't think we get as many freebies here.
Free? You misunderstand, I was listing the companies contributions in
addition to salary so the actual cost of employing someone could be
evaluated, this does not mean that we don't contribute too!
we also pay NI (about 5%), we pay towards the pension(3-5.5%), and
we pay for the car (4,000 pounds a year - approx 7250 dollars for a
basic car - more if you want something decent).
I also pay towards Digitals medical for myself and husband - 275 pounds
a year, and tax is 25-40%.
Heather
|
1924.53 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Wed Jun 10 1992 06:46 | 22 |
|
> In the US, there is still admin overhead for the contractors,
> including additional overhead for contract negotiation, review, and
> compliance. I don't know if the contractors submit invoices for their
> time (I think so, but I'm not certain), but that could add significant
> admin overhead (more so than payroll which can be highly automated).
The admin in the UK has been drastically reduced by the introduction
of a preferred suppliers list of 10 agencies.
Contractors work through the agencies.
Agencies submit a monthly bill
Digital pays the agency.
There is a standard agreement on markups that all agengies have to
stick to.
Its the agency that takes the admin hit, and the internal admin systems
that gain.
This could turn into a major rathole - suffice to say, there is a
significant admin gain, not loss , when people contract.
Heather
|
1924.54 | Some more illogic? | SWAM2::GOLDMAN_MA | One voice DOES make a difference! | Thu Jun 11 1992 23:53 | 20 |
| I cannot speak for other offices/regions, but I can understand why the
original noter (.0) brought this up. In this three-office area, I know
of at least 5 people who SERPed and immediately returned as consultants
or temps -- 3 secretaries, one Services selling manager, and one other
person whose job is unknown to me. On the other hand, in a regional
group in Digital Services, there used to be two individuals who handled
coordination of DECmove for the entire region. Now there are none;
they both SERPed, their jobs are open for replacement (among others in
their group who SERPed...), but it will take time to replace and train.
Meanwhile, we have no DECmove people. Why? Because a DEC VP felt that
there should have been a transition plan in place for these people.
How? The manager was not allowed to post a requisition until the
people had actually SERPed, because, of course, they had the option to
back out at the last minute. Why can secretaries consult (and I know how
important secretaries are...I *am* one...), but critical people like
the DECmove Coordinator (without whom we can generate absolutely *no*
revenue for the product line) cannot? (flame on, and on, and on!)
Just another typical day at the office!
|
1924.55 | | USPMLO::JSANTOS | | Fri Jun 12 1992 10:52 | 8 |
| re .54 > Meanwhile, we have no DECmove people. Why? Because a V.P. at
> DEC felt that there should have been a transition plan in place for
> these people.
Every manager that was facing a potential impact with SERP was told
to put a transition plan in place - just in case - for worse case,
even if the plan was to simply bring back folks for a short period of
time to complete/transition the work.
|
1924.56 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Fri Jun 12 1992 10:58 | 64 |
| I'm posting this because of the tag line, "Please share this information
across your organization." Numerous forwards have been deleted.
From: NAME: RUSS JOHNSON
FUNC: US STAFFING & PLANNING
TEL: 223-9282 <JOHNSON.RUSS AT A1 at ICS at PKO>
Date: 10-Jun-1992
Posted-date: 10-Jun-1992
Precedence: 0
Subject: SERP RETIREES--USE AS EXTERNAL CONTRACTORS & CONSULTANTS 1
To: See Below
CC: See Below
There have been some inquiries regarding the number of SERP retirees
who've returned as external contractors and consultants. The
following will provide you with data, current as of June 6, noting the
number of retirees who've returned and the duration of their
assignments:
SERP Returnees Total Duration of
Assignment
A. External Contract Human Resources
Processed 73 60 days
In Process 100
B. Consultants 25 Under 6
months
C. DEC Temps 5 60 days
203
Within the External Contract Human Resources category, the vast
majority of SERP retirees who've returned are sales representatives
and sales executives. These individuals are on short term assignments
(60 days), working on revenue opportunities and closing business for
this fiscal year. This contingency plan was developed several weeks
ago. Of the 173 SERP retirees who'll return as external contractors,
approximately 30 have returned in secretarial positions. SERP
retirees who returned as external contractors required the approval of
the organization Vice President and PMT member.
All consulting agreements required the approval of the organization
Vice President and Dick Farrahar. 25 of these have been approved to
date. These agreements focus on unique skills and business
requirements.
We have used the DEC Temp category where the returning retiree was
engaged in work which required a more direct employment relationship
with the company. Examples would be government work which requires
security clearance. All of these requests were reviewed and approved
within the Law Department.
Please share this information across your organization. This
information has also been shared with the Executive Committee,
Strategy Committee, and PMT. Should you have questions, please
contact me.
To Distribution List:
<deleted>
|
1924.57 | curious.... | CSC32::K_BOUCHARD | Ken Bouchard CXO3-2 | Fri Jun 12 1992 14:14 | 7 |
| Hmmm...just curious...
What happens if a person SERPS,comes back on a temporary basis to
finish up some important stuff and ends up being hurt in some way so
they hhave to go on disability? Does DEC have you sign something to
absolve them or is this some sort of loophole?
Ken
|
1924.58 | It varies | RT93::HU | NBA final week | Fri Jun 12 1992 14:45 | 13 |
| Re : .57
If you are SERPed, you are no longer cover under full time employee
benefit I assume, unless it's extented for 3-6 month periods based
on each individual.
Back for temporary work, even as short as a week, you will sign a
contract with DEC, which has description cover disability stuff.
Otherwise, I'm afraid you have to buy your own disability insurance.
Michael..
|
1924.59 | | IMTDEV::BRUNO | Father Gregory | Thu Jun 18 1992 16:38 | 8 |
|
With the number of SERP takers who remained as contractors for a while,
and those who frequently come in to visit, it might be reasonable to change
the S.E.R.P. program name to the T.S.R. (for the non-computer-hip: "Terminate
and Stay Resident") program.
Greg
(who is happy to see his SERP'ed friends so often)
|
1924.60 | What is it, man? | SALEM::TEWHEY | My message phone=(603) 434-2330 | Thu Jun 18 1992 18:28 | 19 |
| A TSR vanishes when you shut the power off.
As a SERPer who came back for four weeks to dismantle the telephone
PBX and data networks in APO, I challenge the noters who spoke out
against the policy to come up with a better plan. I had worked here
at APO since 1986. I had built the present telecom plant, who would
be a better choice to tear it down.
I read lots of greed, jealousy and plain `mean spiritedness' between
the lines of some of the previous replies. Live and let live, for
crying out loud!
The power is being shut off permanently in APO on 6/26. I would gladly
take another contract job with DEC - 40 or 20 hours a week, but I doubt
if there are many. (phone no. posted above, just in case) :-)
Goodbye,
Pete
|
1924.61 | | ESOA11::GRILLOJ | John Grillo @ Decus | Thu Jun 25 1992 15:30 | 10 |
| I too will be leaving tomorrow after DECUS had retained me to work 20
hours per week for DECUS. (They have there own budget) but because we
are DEC employees working on the DECUS staff in a DEC plant my manager
was told to get rid of me because there was too many complaints from
somewhere. I had signed a years contract with DECUS but it was all
in vain. Wonder if I qualify for Unemployment? I did work a month for
the User Society. Oh well it was a pain to come in for 4 hours a day.
Now DECUS (and DEC) has to hire a contract 8 hours to do 3-4 hours of
work. Hope it works out. If they call me in 6 months, it will cost them
more. :-) Good by AGAIN.
|
1924.62 | | A1VAX::DISMUKE | Say you saw it in NOTES... | Thu Jun 25 1992 17:34 | 6 |
| Signed a years contract - is there a breech of contract here?
UMMMM
-sandy
|